IRC SP 041: Guidelines for the Design of At-Grade Intersections in Rural and Urban Areas

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

IRC SP 041: Guidelines for the Design of At-Grade Intersections in Rural and Urban Areas Special Publication 41 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS IN RURAL & URBAN AREAS THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS 1994 Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2014 https://archive.org/details/govlawircy1994sp41_0 Special Publication 41 GUIDELINES FOR THE DESIGN OF AT-GRADE INTERSECTIONS IN RURAL & URBAN AREAS THE INDIAN ROADS CONGRESS 1994 1 Published in September 1994 Reprinted : February. 2007 Reprinted December 20 1 (Rights of Publication and Translation are Reserved) Published by: The Indian Roads Congress Copies can be had from the Secretary General, Indian Roads Congress, Jamnagar House, Shahjahan Road, New Delhi- 11 0001 NEW DELHI 1 994 Price Rs. 200/- (Plus Packing & Postage) Edited and Published by Shri D.P. Gupta, Secretary, Indian Roads Congress, New Delhi Published at : Aravali Printers & Publishers Pvt. Ltd. W-30, Okhla Phase II, New Delhi (500 Copies) MEMBERS OF THE HIGHWAYS SPECIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS COMMITTEE (AS ON 1-9-92) 1. R.P.Sikka Addl. Director General (Roads), {Convenor) Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing) 2. P. K. Dutta Chief Engineer (Roads) (Member - Secretary) Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing) 3. G. R. Ambwani Engineer-in-Chief, Municipal Corporation of Delhi 4. S.R. Agarwal General Manager (R), Rail India Technical & Economic Services Ltd. 5. V. K. Arora Chief Engineer (Roads), Ministry of Surface Transport, (Roads Wing) 6. R.K. Banerjee Engineer-in-Chief & Ex-officio Secretary to Govt, of West Bengal 7. Dr. S. Raghava Chari Professor, Transport Engg. Section, Deptt. of Civil Engg., Regional Engg. College, Warangal 8. Dr. M. P. Dhir Director (Engg. Co-ordination), Council of Scientific & Industrial Research 9. J.K. Dugad Chief Engineer (Retd.) 98A, MIG Flats, AD Pocket, Pitam Pura New Delhi. 10. Lt. Gen. M.S. Gosain Shanker Sadan, 57/1, Hardwar Road, Dehradun. 11. O.P. Goel Director General (Works), C.P.W.D. New Delhi 12. D.K. Gupta Chief Engineer (HQ), PWD, U.P. 13. Dr. A.K. Gupta Professor & Coordinator, University of Roorkee i 14. G. Sree Ramana Gopal Scientist - SD, Ministry of Environment & Forest 15. H.P. Jamdar Special Secretary to Govt, of Gujarat, Roads & Building Department 16. M.B. Jayawant Synthetic Asphalts, 103, Pooja Mahul Road, Chembur, Bombay 17. V.P. Kamdar Plot No. 23, Sector No. 19, Gandhinagar 18. Dr. L. R. Kadiyali Chief Consultant, S-487, Und floor, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi 19. Ninan Koshi Addl. Director General (Bridges), Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing), New Delhi 20. P.K. Lauria Secretary to Govt, of Rajasthan, Jaipur 21. N.V. Merani Secretary (Retd.) Maharashtra PWD 22. M.M. Swaroop Mathur Secretary (Retd.), Rajasthan PWD 23. Dr. A.K. Mullick Director General, National Council for Cement & Building Materials, New Delhi 24. Y.R. Phull Deputy Director, CRRI, New Delhi 25. G. Raman Deputy Director General, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi 26. Prof. N. Ranganathan Prof. & Head, Deptt. of Transport Plan- ning, School of Planning & Architecture 27. P.J.Rao Deputy Director & Head, Geotechnical Engg. Division, CRRI, New Delhi 28. Prof. G.V. Rao Prof, of Civil Engg., Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi 29. R.K. Saxena Chief Engineer (Retd.), Ministry of Sur- face Transport, New Delhi 30. A. Sankaran A- 1, 7/2, 51, Shingrila, 22nd Cross Street, Basant Nagar, Madras 31. Dr. A. C. Sarna General Manager (T&T), Urban Transport Divn., RITES, New Delhi 32. Prof. C.G. Swaminathan Director, CRRI (Retd.), New Delhi 33. G. Sinha Addl. Chief Engineer (Pig.) PWD (Roads), Guwahati 34. A.R. Shah Chief Engineer (QC) & Joint Secretary, R&B Deptt. (Gujarat) 35. K.K. Sarin Director General (Road Development) & Addl. Secy, to Govt, of India, Ministry of Surface Transport (Retd.), New Delhi 36. M.K. Saxena Director, National Institute for Training of Highway Engineers, New Delhi 37. A. Sen Chief Engineer (Civil), Indian Road Con- struction Corp. Ltd., New Delhi 38. The Director Highways Research Station, Madras 39. The Director Central Road Research Institute, New Delhi 40. The President, IRC Secretary to the Govt, of Sikkim — (L.B. Chhetri) Ex-officio 4 1 . The Director General Ministry of Surface Transport (Roads Wing), (Road Development) & New Delhi Ex-officio Addl. Secretary to the Govt of India 42. The Secretary Indian Roads Congress (Ninan Koshi) Ex-officio Corresponding Members 1. S.K. Bhatnagar Deputy Director, Bitumen, Hindustan Pe- troleum Corp. Ltd. 2. Brig. C.T. Chari Chief Engineer, Bombay Zone, Bombay 3. A. Choudhuri Shalimar Tar Products, New Delhi 4. L.N. Narendra Singh IDL Chemicals Ltd., New Delhi. CONTENTS Page No. 1. Introduction 1 2. Basic Design Principles 4 3. Design Data Required 13 4. Parameters of Intersection Design 18 5. Capacity of Intersection 60 6. Use of Traffic Control Devices at Intersections 62 7. Signal Controlled Intersection 70 8. Special Considerations in Urban Areas 81 9. Lighting, Drainage, Utilities and Landscaping of Intersection 84 Appendices Appendix I Layout of Curves at the Intersection 88 Appendix II Capacity Assessment of At-grade Intersection 105 (Based on U.K. Practice) Appendix III Capacity of Unsignalised Intersection 113 Figures Figure 1.1 Intersection Selection based on Traffic Flow 4 Combination (U.K. Practice) Figure 1.2 General Types of At-Grade Intersections 5 Figure 2.1 Potential Conflict Points at Different Types of 7 Intersections Figure 2.2 Channelisation Techniques Illustrating Basic 8 Intersection Design Principles Figure 2.3 Potential Conflict Points at Different Types of 9 Intersections Figure 2.4 Staggering of Intersections 9 Figure 2.5 Analysis of Accident Types at Three Arm Intersections 10 Figure 2.6 Realignment Variation of Intersection 12 Figure 2.7 Main Road Intersections—Approach 14 Grading on Side Roads Figure 3.1 Peak Hour Traffic Flow Diagram in 16 Number of Vehicles Figure 3.2 Peak Hour Traffic Flow Diagram in PCUs 17 Figure 3.3 Collision Diagram 18 Figure 4.1 Design of Street Lanes Curve 24 Figure 4.2 Effect of Kerb Radii and Parking on Turning Paths 25 Figure 4.3 Variations in Length of Crosswalk with Corner 26 Kerb Radius and Width of Border Figure 4.4 Method of Transition Curves at Points of 28 Additional Lane Figure 4.5 Provision of Turning Lanes at Intersections 28 Figure 4.6 Method of Widening at Intersections 29 Figure 4.7 Method of Widening for Turning Lanes at Intersections 30 Figure 4.8 Typical Dimensions of Road Intersections 31 Figure 4.9 Superelevation Rates for Various Design Speeds 35 Figure 4.10 Development of Superelevation at 36 Turning Roadway Terminals Figure 4.1 1 Development of Superelevation at 37 Turning Roadway Terminals Figure 4.12 Development of Superelevation at 38 Turning Roadway Terminals Figure 4.13 Development of Superelevation at 39 Turning Roadway Terminals Figure 4.14 Minimum Sight Triangle at Uncontrolled Intersections 41 Figure 4.15 Minimum Sight Triangle at Priority Intersections 41 Figure 4.16 Trimming of Trees and Hedges Required for 42 Clear Sight Distance Figure 4. 17 General Types and Shapes of Islands 44 Figure 4.18 Details of Triangular Island Design 45 (kerbed islands, no shoulder) Figure 4.19 Details of Triangular Island Design 46 (kerbed island with shoulders) Figure 4.20 Design for Turning Roadways with 47 Minimum Corner Island Figure 4.21 Methods of Offsetting Approach Nose of 48 Channelising Island Figure 4.22 Alignment for Providing of Divisional Islands at 49 Intersections Figure 4.23 Channelising Islands 50 Figure 4.24 Offset Details of Central Islands 51 Figure 4.25 Shaping the Traffic Island 51 Figure 4.26 Shaping of Traffic Island for Different Angles of Turning 52 Figure 4.27 Details of Divisional Island Design 53 Figure 4.28 Correct Method of Shaping a Central Island 54 Figure 4.29 Progressive Layouts of T-Intersections for 56 Use on Main Highways Figure 4.30 Type Layout of a Right Hand Splay Intersection 57 Figure 4.31 Four-arm Intersection Providing Simultaneous 58 Right Turns Figure 4.32 Median Right Turn Design 59 Figure 4.33 Typical Kerb Sections 59 Figure 6.1 Typical Carriageway Markings at Road Intersections 63 Figure 6.2 Signs Used at Intersections 65 Figure 6.3 Typical Sign Posting at a Rural T-Intersection 66 Figure 6.4 Typical Sign Posting at Rural Four-Arm Intersections 67 Figure 6.5 Typical Sign Posting at an Urban T-Intersection 68 Figure 6.6 Typical Sign Posting at an Urban Four-Armed 69 Intersection Figure 7.1 Simplified Diagram of Widened Approaches at 71 Signal Controlled Intersection Figure 7.2 Suggested Layout for Offset Central Reserve 72 Figure 7.3 Offset Central Reserve with Improved Visibility 72 for Right - Turning Vehicles Figure 7.4 Early Cut-off 74 Figure 7.5 Typical Intersection Approach Road Showing 75 Pedestrain Crossing Figure 7.6 Saturation Flow and Lost Time 76 Figure 7.7 Signalised Intersection Layout and 79 Carriageway Markings Figure 7.8 Typical Layout of Traffic Signal Installations 80 Figure 8.1 Segregation of Cycle Traffic at Road Intersection 83 Figure 8.2. Cyclists Crossing at Signalised Intersection 85 Figure 1-1 Swept Path Width for Various Truck Vehicles Low Speed 88 Off Tracking in a 90° Intersection Turn Figure 1-2 Minimum Turning Path for Passenger Car 89 Design Vehicle (P) Figure 1-3 Minimum Turning Path for Single Unit Truck 90 Design Vehicle (SU) Figure 1-4 Minimum Turning Path for Semi-Trailer 91 (WB. - 12.0) Design Vehicle Figure 1-5 Minimum Turning Path for Semi-Trailer 92 (WB - 15.0) Design Vehicle Figure 1-6 Minimum Turning Path for Truck Trailer 93 (WB - 18.0) Design Vehicle - Figure 1-7 Minimum Designs for Passenger Vehicles for 90° turn 94 Figure 1-8 Minimum Designs and Single Unit Trucks and 95 Buses for 90° turn Figure 1-9 Minimum Designs for Semi-Trailer Combinations 96 (WB - 12.0) Design Vehicle Path 90° turn Figure I- 10 Minimum Designs for Semi-Trailer Combinations 97 Design (WB-15) Vehicle Path for 90° turn Figure 1-11.
Recommended publications
  • The Gibraltar Highway Code
    P ! CONTENTS Introduction Rules for pedestrians 3 Rules for users of powered wheelchairs and mobility scooters 10 Rules about animals 12 Rules for cyclists 13 Rules for motorcyclists 17 Rules for drivers and motorcyclists 19 General rules, techniques and advice for all drivers and riders 25 Road users requiring extra care 60 Driving in adverse weather conditions 66 Waiting and parking 70 Motorways 74 Breakdowns and incidents 79 Road works, level crossings and tramways 85 Light signals controlling traffic 92 Signals by authorised persons 93 Signals to other road users 94 Traffic signs 96 Road markings 105 Vehicle markings 109 Annexes 1. You and your bicycle 112 2. Vehicle maintenance and safety 113 3. Vehicle security 116 4. First aid on the road 116 5. Safety code for new drivers 119 1 Introduction This Highway Code applies to Gibraltar. However it also focuses on Traffic Signs and Road Situations outside Gibraltar, that as a driver you will come across most often. The most vulnerable road users are pedestrians, particularly children, older or disabled people, cyclists, motorcyclists and horse riders. It is important that all road users are aware of The Code and are considerate towards each other. This applies to pedestrians as much as to drivers and riders. Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/ MUST NOT’.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study and Analysis of Existing Road Junction
    Special Issue - 2016 International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) ISSN: 2278-0181 SNCIPCE - 2016 Conference Proceedings A Study and Analysis of Existing Road Junction Bavithran. R, Sasikumar. N Ms. G. Yamuna,.. Asst Professor Department of Civil Engg Department of Civil Engg V.R.S College of Engg & Tech, Araur, VPM Dst V.R.S College of Engg & Tech, Araur, VPM Dst Abstract - Road junction is the point at which more than are also three major groups of sedimentary rocks, layers of two roads are connecting at the point. The junction is particles that settled in different geological periods. analyzed by Volume Count Survey. The volume count survey Viluppuram's GPS location is 11° 56' N 79° 29' E. is one of the methods of finding out the Traffic volume. The Villupuram is the one of the most popular city in junction which is situated in Villupuram is taken as study tamilnadu. In this project, an existing road junction is area. In this junction, the volume count survey is taken for 15 days for determine the Passenger Car Unit and the Level Of studied and analyzed by using volume count survey.. Some Service for the junction is computed. To improve the information are to be carried before the project has started. junction, some suggestions are suggested. The greener time of the Traffic flow from Chennai, Trichy, thirukovillur, Pondicherry are 20 sec, 25 Keywords:- Volume count survey, Peak hour, Passenger sec, 15 sec, and 20 sec respectively. CCTV is provided car unit, Level of service from junction to junction near veeravaliamman temple.
    [Show full text]
  • US-60/Grand Avenue Corridor Optimization, Access Management, and System Study (COMPASS)
    US-60/Grand Avenue COMPASS Loop 303 to Interstate 10 TM 3 – National Case Study Review US-60/Grand Avenue Corridor Optimization, Access Management, and System Study (COMPASS) Loop 303 to Interstate 10 Technical Memorandum 3 National Case Study Review Prepared for: Prepared by: Wilson & Company, Inc. In Association With: Burgess & Niple, Inc. Partners for Strategic Action, Inc. Philip B. Demosthenes, LLC March 2013 3/25/2013 US-60/Grand Avenue COMPASS Loop 303 to Interstate 10 TM 3 – National Case Study Review Table of Contents List of Abbreviations 1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. Purpose of this Paper ................................................................................................................................................................ 1 1.2. Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Michigan 1 (M-1)/Woodward Avenue – Detroit, Michigan ................................................................................................... 4 2.1. Access to Urban/Suburban Areas ......................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2. Corridor Access Control ...........................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Road Network Selection for Small-Scale Maps Using an Improved Centrality-Based Algorithm
    JOURNAL OF SPATIAL INFORMATION SCIENCE Number 9 (2014), pp. 71–99 doi:10.5311/JOSIS.2014.9.166 RESEARCH ARTICLE Road network selection for small-scale maps using an improved centrality-based algorithm Roy Weiss and Robert Weibel Department of Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland Received: January 31, 2014; returned: March 13, 2014; revised: July 29, 2014; accepted: August 18, 2014. Abstract: The road network is one of the key feature classes in topographic maps and databases. In the task of deriving road networks for products at smaller scales, road net- work selection forms a prerequisite for all other generalization operators, and is thus a fun- damental operation in the overall process of topographic map and database production. The objective of this work was to develop an algorithm for automated road network selec- tion from a large-scale (1:10,000) to a small-scale database (1:200,000). The project was pur- sued in collaboration with swisstopo, the national mapping agency of Switzerland, with generic mapping requirements in mind. Preliminary experiments suggested that a selec- tion algorithm based on betweenness centrality performed best for this purpose, yet also exposed problems. The main contribution of this paper thus consists of four extensions that address deficiencies of the basic centrality-based algorithm and lead to a significant improvement of the results. The first two extensions improve the formation of strokes concatenating the road segments, which is crucial since strokes provide the foundation upon which the network centrality measure is computed. Thus, the first extension en- sures that roundabouts are detected and collapsed, thus avoiding interruptions of strokes by roundabouts, while the second introduces additional semantics in the process of stroke formation, allowing longer and more plausible strokes to built.
    [Show full text]
  • 1.0 Introduction 2.0 General Observations
    Core Bus Corridor 9: Greenhills - Preliminary Submission 1.0 Introduction Dublin Cycling Campaign is a registered charity that advocates for better cycling conditions in Dublin. Dublin Cycling Campaign is the leading member of Cyclist.ie, the Irish Cycling Advocacy Network (ICAN). We wants to make Dublin a safe and friendly place for everyone of all ages to cycle. There are many welcome segments to the Greenhills to City Centre route that have the potential to deliver a high-quality route. However, these good sections are let down by poorly managed detours for cyclists, gaps in the cycling provision and poor details. The proposals for Kildare Road in particular are both unsafe and a poor alternative to the Crumlin Road. There are some high-level issues with the current proposals. We understand that the NTA is currently at a preliminary concept design stage. This is reassuring as many of the details of the proposed cycling facilities need to be improved in order to enable safe cycling for people of all ages and abilities. We look forward to future engagement with the NTA to resolve the major issues and refine the details in later stages so that we can produce a high-quality result similar to the Fairview/North Strand cycle route. 2.0 General Observations 2.1 There are some clear improvements Though we are critical of parts of the concept design in many areas, there are already positive improvements proposed for pedestrians and cyclists within this concept design. These include: ● Extensive use of cycle track segregation throughout the corridor. 1 ● The redesign of the Walkinstown Roundabout to reduce the number of traffic lanes and to install safe crossing features, although we disagree with the proposal for ‘shared space’, as it will de-prioritise cyclists.
    [Show full text]
  • Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study
    Apache Junction Comprehensive Transportation Study Final Report May 2012 Prepared for the: Arizona Department of Transportation Prepared by: Jacobs 101 N. 1ST Ave. Suite 3100 Phoenix, AZ 85003 P: 602.253.1200 F: 602.253.1202 www.jacobs.com ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS City of Apache Junction Council Members Mayor John S. Insalaco Robin Barker Doug Coleman Rick Dietz Jeff Serdy Clark Smithson Chip Wilson Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Charla Glendening, Project Manager, ADOT Multimodal Planning Division Giao Pham, P.E, City Engineer/Interim Director, Public Works, City of Apache Junction Steve Filipowicz, Director Economic Development, City of Apache Junction Nick Blake, Parks Superintendent, City of Apache Junction Brett Jackson , Police Lieutenant, Apache Junction Police Department Dan Campbell, Fire Chief, Apache Junction Fire District Dave Montgomery, Chief Fire Marshall, Apache Junction Chad Wilson, Superintendent, Apache Junction Unified School District Bill Leister, Transportation Director, Central Arizona Association of Governments Michelle Green, Project Manager, Arizona State Land Department Doug Hansen, Planning Section Chief, Pinal County Greg Stanley, P.E., Director / County Engineer, Pinal County Alan Sanderson, Deputy Transportation Director, City of Mesa Ken Hall, AICP, Senior Planner, City of Mesa Tim Oliver, Systems Planning Manager, Maricopa County Department of Transportation Felicia Terry, Regional Planning Director, Maricopa County Flood Control District Pat Brenner, Community Relations Manager, City of Apache Junction Angelita
    [Show full text]
  • Interchange of a New Generation Pinavia
    1 INTERCHANGE OF A NEW GENERATION PINAVIA 2 3 StanislovasButeliauskas 4 The General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania 5 Šilo 5A, LT-10322, Vilnius, Lithuania 6 Phone: +370 212 103 553 7 Email: [email protected] 8 9 AušriusJuozapavi čius , corresponding author 10 The General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania 11 Šilo 5A, LT-10322, Vilnius, Lithuania 12 Phone: +370 212 103 555 13 Email: [email protected] 14 15 16 Word count: 3,110 words text + 7 tables/figures x 250 words each = 4,860 words 17 18 19 Submission date: June 15, 2014 Buteliauskas, Juozapavi čius 2 20 ABSTRACT 21 A new two-level interchange of a unique design called PINAVIA is presented. The new 22 interchange is functionally similar to a conventional four-level stacked interchange: transport flows do 23 not intersect, the driving speed in all directions can be equal to the speeds of the intersecting roads, and 24 the design allows arbitrary capacity in any direction. The PINAVIA design makes it possible to utilize the 25 center area of the junction making it unique in its class. As a consequence, it is a natural component of a 26 Park&Ride system, where private cars can be parked and public transport hubs created. Easy access 27 without intersections to the center area makes it possible to create additional infrastructure with new 28 working places. A new city transportation strategy can be implemented using several PINAVIA 29 interchanges around a city, which could substantially reduce traffic in the city center. Alternative 30 interchange designs are also possible based on the same principles of PINAVIA: designs for three or five 31 roads, elliptical versions, and mirrored versions.
    [Show full text]
  • Geometric Design of Junctions (Priority Junctions, Direct Accesses, Roundabouts, Grade Separated and Compact Grade Separated Junctions)
    Geometric Design of Junctions (priority junctions, direct accesses, roundabouts, grade separated and compact grade separated junctions) DN-GEO-03060 April 2017 SUPERSEDED TRANSPORT INFRASTRUCTURE IRELAND (TII) PUBLICATIONS About TII Transport Infrastructure Ireland (TII) is responsible for managing and improving the country’s national road and light rail networks. About TII Publications TII maintains an online suite of technical publications, which is managed through the TII Publications website. The contents of TII Publications is clearly split into ‘Standards’ and ‘Technical’ documentation. All documentation for implementation on TII schemes is collectively referred to as TII Publications (Standards), and all other documentation within the system is collectively referred to as TII Publications (Technical). Document Attributes Each document within TII Publications has a range of attributes associated with it, which allows for efficient access and retrieval of the document from the website. These attributes are also contained on the inside cover of each current document, for reference. TII Publication Title Geometric Design of Junctions (priority junctions, direct accesses, roundabouts, grade separated and compact grade separated junctions) TII Publication Number DN-GEO-03060 Activity Design (DN) Document Set Standards Stream Geometry (GEO) Publication Date April 2017 Document 03060 Historical N/A Number Reference TII Publications Website This document is part of the TII publications system all of which is available free of charge at http://www.tiipublications.ie. For more information on the TII Publications system or to access further TII Publications documentation, please refer to the TII Publications website. TII Authorisation and Contact Details This document has been authorised by the Director of Professional Services, Transport Infrastructure Ireland.
    [Show full text]
  • Agenda for Sub-Committee Meeting
    AGENDA FOR SUB-COMMITTEE MEETING PRECONSTRUCTION AND HUMAN RESOURCES – Commissioners Alexander, Dyson and Grimsley Monday, July 6, 2020 10:00 a.m. This Virtual Meeting will be held via video teleconference only pursuant to the Oklahoma Open Meeting Act, as amended by Senate Bill 661. 1. Item No. 78 - Programming of Federal Railroad Crossing Safety Funds - Section 130 Title 23 Funds - Mr. Schwennesen Hughes County – Commission District III In Wetumka, Construction funding for a Signal project which includes the installation of pedestal- mounted flashing light signals with gate arms and drainage improvements at the intersection of Wewoka Street and the BNSF mainline. Total cost is $665,278.00 2. Item No. 79 - Safety Improvement Projects - Mr. Pendley a). Commissioner Districts III, IV, V and VII We have received a request from the Divisions III, IV, V, and VII Engineers for the installation of centerline rumble strip and pavement markings at the following locations: 1. SH 76: District III - Beginning in McClain County at the SH 76 & SH 39 junction, extending northerly approximately 6.5 miles to near the US 62 & SH 76 junction west of Blanchard; 2. US 81: District IV - In Canadian County beginning at the Canadian & Grady County Line, extending northerly approximately 2.5 miles to near the US 81 & SH 152 junction in Union City; 3. US 70 & US 183: District V - In Tillman County beginning at the Oklahoma & Texas State Line, extending northerly approximately 13 miles to near the US 183 & CR E1820 Road south of Frederick; 4. US 283: District V - In Jackson County beginning near the US 283 & SH 5 junction, extending northerly approximately 8 to near County Road 165 (Ridgecrest Road) south of Altus; 5.
    [Show full text]
  • A Deep Neural Network for Road Junction Disambiguation for Autonomous Vehicles
    JuncNet: A Deep Neural Network for Road Junction Disambiguation for Autonomous Vehicles Saumya Kumaar1, Navaneethkrishnan B1, Sumedh Mannar1 and S N Omkar1 Abstract— With a great amount of research going on in the the implementation of such systems proves to be a costly field of autonomous vehicles or self-driving cars, there has affair with recurrent maintenance costs apart from the initial been considerable progress in road detection and tracking algo- installation cost. rithms. Most of these algorithms use GPS to handle road junc- tions and its subsequent decisions. However, there are places in the urban environment where it becomes difficult to get GPS fixes which render the junction decision handling erroneous or possibly risky. Vision-based junction detection, however, does not have such problems. This paper proposes a novel deep convolutional neural network architecture for disambiguation of junctions from roads with a high degree of accuracy. This network is benchmarked against other well known classifying network architectures like AlexNet and VGGnet. Further, we discuss a potential road navigation methodology which uses the proposed network model. We conclude by performing an experimental validation of the trained network and the navigational method on the roads of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc). I. INTRODUCTION Autonomy in transportation systems have garnered a great level of interest in both academic and industrial research communities in the past few years [1] Apart from the fully autonomous prototypes, the automobile industry has been equipping their products with intelligent assistive features like Lane tracking, LiDAR-based braking, and the parallel- parking assist. Despite exponential advances in the develop- ment of these intelligent features, the world is yet to witness a fully-autonomous system in service.
    [Show full text]
  • Street Trading Map
    Street trading map Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Page Street trading map 1 of 4 Date of publication – 16 September 2020 Revision: 2 List of Consent and Prohibited streets in the Borough Road name Description of area covered Consent or prohibited? Belgrave Road For its entire length Prohibited Calverley Road Between its junctions with Mount Pleasant Consent Road and Camden Road Calverley Street From its junction with Calverley Road to its Prohibited junction with Garden Street Camden Road Between its junctions with Quarry Road and Consent Garden Road Crescent Road ‘Consent Street’ only from its junction with Consent Mount Pleasant Road to its junction with Calverley Park) Castle Road For its entire length Consent Castle Street For its entire length Consent Chapel Place For its entire length Prohibited Church Road From its junction with Inner London Road to its Consent junction with Mount Pleasant Road Culverden Street For its entire length Prohibited Dudley Road For its entire length Prohibited Eridge Road From its junction with London Road to its junction Prohibited with Montacute Gardens Eridge Road From its junction with Linden Park Road to its Prohibited junction with Montacute Gardens Eridge Road From its junction with Nevill Street to its junction Prohibited with Linden Park Garden Street For its entire length Prohibited Goods Station For its entire length Prohibited Road Grove Hill Road From its junction with Mount Pleasant Road to Prohibited Sutherland Road Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Tunbridge Wells Borough Council Page
    [Show full text]
  • Greater Manchester Cycling Design Guidance and Standards
    March 2014 Version Comments Prepared Issue Date Reviewed by No. by 1.0 Initial Draft prepared by AECOM (Phase 1) NB / PH 30-Aug-13 ALB / NV (AECOM) (TfGM) 1.1 Amendments following comments from ALB and NV NB / PH 06-Sept-13 ALB / NV of TfGM (AECOM) (TfGM) 2.0 Amendments following wider consultation NB / PH 21-Jan-14 NV (TfGM) (AECOM) 2.1 Amendments following discussions with other CCAG NB 21-Mar-14 NV (TfGM) Cities, TfL, DfT and GMDDRG (AECOM) Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Context .................................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Key Design Criteria ............................................................................................................................... 1 1.3 Quality of Service Philosophy ............................................................................................................... 2 1.4 Design constraints ................................................................................................................................. 3 1.5 Design Opportunities ............................................................................................................................. 3 1.6 Purpose of this document ..................................................................................................................... 4 1.7 Layout
    [Show full text]